ELECTIONS '98
COMMENTARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

Charges framed against Muthiah, family members in corruption case

A special judge, trying corruption cases against the previous All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam regime in Tamil Nadu, today framed charges against Union Surface Transport Minister Sedapatti R Muthiah and his family members in the 'disproportionate wealth case' against him.

Dismissing the discharge petitions filed by Muthiah and his family members, Special Judge S Sambandam said the statements and annexures produced before the court made it clear that there were 'materials to frame charges against the accused'.

Speaking to the media in the court premises, the Union minister said he would not step down in the wake of the development, but would fight it out legally.

The prosecution's case was that Muthiah had amassed wealth to the tune of Rs 4.57 million in his name and in the name of his family members during his tenure as speaker of the state assembly, when J Jayalalitha was the chief minister.

Muthiah, his wife Sakunthala, sons Arivalagan and Manimaran, and daughter Malarvizhi, who were present in the court, pleaded not guilty, when asked by the judge.

The judge framed charges under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against Muthiah and Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (e) of the PCA against his family members.

The judge then posted the case to May 4 for trial.

Referring to Muthiah's contention in his discharge petition that the speaker was not a public servant and hence the PCA would not be applicable to him in this case, the judge said the Supreme Court's verdict in a case clearly showed that the speaker was also a public servant.

On the contention that the PCA would not be applicable to his family members as they were private individuals, the judge pointed out that Section 28 of the PCA made it clear that the provisions of this act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other law in force for the time being, and nothing contained herein shall exempt any public servant from any proceeding which might be instituted against him apart from this act.

Citing a Supreme Court ruling, the judge said while framing charges, that the court was not to enter into meticulous consideration of the evidence and materials. If the prosecution failed to prove the case naturally, the accused were entitled to acquittal but that would be after the framing of charges.

The Supreme Court had also held that the court should evaluate the materials and documents filed before it and find out whether the facts emerging therefrom disclosed all ingredients of the alleged offence. In this case, the prosecution had alleged that properties were purchased by Muthiah in the names of his family members, the judge added.

Citing various rulings of the high court and Supreme Court, the judge said a sessions judge was empowered to consider any materials or statements. In this case, some of the witnesses had given accounts of the ancestral properties possessed by Muthiah and his family members and their income before the check period -- July 3, 1991 to October 31, 1994.

The documents filed by the prosecution also showed the extent of properties and their purchase value during the said period. The annexures raised some suspicion about the accused. At this stage, it was enough to find out whether there were materials to frame charges or not. If the court goes deep into the matter and discusses the materials in depth, it might cause embarrassment either to the prosecution or to the defence at this stage of trial, he added.

Muthiah, being a public servant as speaker of the Tamil Nadu assembly from July 1991 to October 1994, was found to be in possession of properties and pecuniary resources disproportionate to his known sources of income in his name and in the name of his family members to the extent of Rs 4.57 million by criminal misconduct, for which he could not satisfactorily account, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (e) of the PCA.

In the course of the same transaction during the said period, Muthiah's family members abetted him in the commission of the said offence by allowing him to acquire the properties in their names and by holding such properties on behalf of Muthiah, thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 109 (abetment) of the IPC read with Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (e) of the PCA, the judge added.

UNI

Tell us what you think of this report